All four of those statements are true.

Bryant-32 mins per game
Harris-31
Riley-22
Harrison-33
Ross-26
Sims-20
Thompson-27
Balkema-9

That's an 8 man rotation that you played against WMU. Throw in Strickland, who averages 6+ mins for EMU and you've easily stretched it to a 9 man rotation.


Just pointing out the obvious that EMU is quicker and faster than WMU. If Murphy played man to man defense or ran an up tempo offense, if would be clear as day.


Toledo does play at a fast pace. I was actually wrong, they have an 8 man rotation. Brown, Pearson, Boothe, Buckley, Lemons, Smith, Wonnell, and Holliday. They average 10 points more per game than EMU and they don't slow the game down. Ditto for Oakland. They play an 8 man rotation and average almost 72 points per game, that's a full 14 points more than EMU. Do you really think Toledo or Oakland has superior athletes to EMU?


Not sure what is so funny about true statements.

(01-25-2013 09:21 AM)EA3 Wrote:  All four of those statements are true.

Bryant-32 mins per game
Harris-31
Riley-22
Harrison-33
Ross-26
Sims-20
Thompson-27
Balkema-9

That's an 8 man rotation that you played against WMU. Throw in Strickland, who averages 6+ mins for EMU and you've easily stretched it to a 9 man rotation.


Just pointing out the obvious that EMU is quicker and faster than WMU. If Murphy played man to man defense or ran an up tempo offense, if would be clear as day.


Toledo does play at a fast pace. I was actually wrong, they have an 8 man rotation. Brown, Pearson, Boothe, Buckley, Lemons, Smith, Wonnell, and Holliday. They average 10 points more per game than EMU and they don't slow the game down. Ditto for Oakland. They play an 8 man rotation and average almost 72 points per game, that's a full 14 points more than EMU. Do you really think Toledo or Oakland has superior athletes to EMU?


Not sure what is so funny about true statements.

I agree with you, EA3.

Might get a debate from some here, but even Chandler, if needed, could get into the rotation.

He has abilities to be a 5 - 10 minute per game backup PG. He too is stuck in the numbers game.

EDIT: I am NOT suggesting that Murph run Chandler off, but if he wants to play and get PT on a good D-II program, Wayne State (not far from his home in Windsor) is an EXCELLENT D-II program (they are 11 - 1 in the GLIAC losing only one game in double OT).

I believe he has two years of elig after this season.

I doubt he'll get hardly any PT next season and quite frankly having him sit on the bench is a waste of his talents.

PT will be a real problem next season for Harper and Chandler. Barring injury we are deep at PG (Ross, Talley, and Sims + Lee, if needed).

How can a coach play 5 or 6 PGs????

In all seriousness emusteve, and others, I look at EMU and see a bunch of athletic long players that are being held back on offense.

I will say this though...most MAC games for EMU will likely be 3 possessions or less on the positive or negative side for EMU. Which means EMU has a shot at everyone in the conference if things go their way. Most MAC teams can't make that claim.

(01-25-2013 10:46 AM)EA3 Wrote:  In all seriousness emusteve, and others, I look at EMU and see a bunch of athletic long players that are being held back on offense.

I will say this though...most MAC games for EMU will likely be 3 possessions or less on the positive or negative side for EMU. Which means EMU has a shot at everyone in the conference if things go their way. Most MAC teams can't make that claim.

I agree, although EMUAaron points out quite succinctly in one of his posts that the Murphy offense is predicated on the Murphy defense.

What EMUAaron was saying, is that to play a good zone, the players have to get back into a zone, they do not simply follow their man back.

As such, a track meet game is likely to cause breakdowns in the zone defense and it might disintegrate into chaos, not a good zone defense nor a good man to man defense, but a mess.

We have seen games where EMU tried to run and hoist up the trey only to see the game go down hill in a hurry.

All of that said, if Murphy wanted I assume he has the athletes to play up and down full court, man to man, hoops if he wanted, but he doesn't.

EA3, Aren't you mister feel good on this board. I have two rebuttals to some of the posters here. 1. You guys think you can run Western because you go 8-9 deep in your rotation?? We can run 10-11 deep, depending on Hawkins mood... We can run with any team in the MAC.
2. You do have some very good looking athletes on this team. However, this does not mean that they are good basketball players... There is a difference as many of you know.

(01-25-2013 11:23 AM)broncojohnny Wrote:  EA3, Aren't you mister feel good on this board. I have two rebuttals to some of the posters here. 1. You guys think you can run Western because you go 8-9 deep in your rotation?? We can run 10-11 deep, depending on Hawkins mood... We can run with any team in the MAC.
2. You do have some very good looking athletes on this team. However, this does not mean that they are good basketball players... There is a difference as many of you know.

EMU and WMU are two deep squads.

We DO HAVE very good basketball players. One of the themes of this discussion is whether the Murphy zone defense, with its corollary half court offense, stifles some of the players such as Bryant, Riley, Thompson, Harris, etc.. That is a question we are curious.

I hope it doesn't happen, but if Murphy was to leave say after this season, a new coach could very well opt to look at the roster and turn the players loose and play fast-break hoops.

This is NOT a team which can only win by keeping the score below 50.

(01-25-2013 11:23 AM)broncojohnny Wrote:  EA3, Aren't you mister feel good on this board. I have two rebuttals to some of the posters here. 1. You guys think you can run Western because you go 8-9 deep in your rotation?? We can run 10-11 deep, depending on Hawkins mood... We can run with any team in the MAC.
2. You do have some very good looking athletes on this team. However, this does not mean that they are good basketball players... There is a difference as many of you know.

What's that quote???? Oh yeah...


"Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. You know, giving him the bird!"

They are the Eagles you know....

All in good fun on the above post.

I think most people would agree that EMU has very good athletes on it's squad. It's hard to determine how good they are at basketball due to the style of offense EMU runs.

broncojohnny, I was the one who mentioned that EMU should try running on offense. I was just wondering if they would be more successful. Just my point of view though.

Long and athletic doesn't mean skilled and smart. Our team lacks the most basic fundamentals. We cannot rebound.. shoot we cannot even catch the ball at times. Free throws.. don't even get me started. Same with wide open shots. In high school you can win games based on athletic ability. Not on college level.

(01-25-2013 12:26 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  Long and athletic doesn't mean skilled and smart. Our team lacks the most basic fundamentals. We cannot rebound.. shoot we cannot even catch the ball at times. Free throws.. don't even get me started. Same with wide open shots. In high school you can win games based on athletic ability. Not on college level.

Some of this board believe problems with defensive rebounding is an artifact of the zone defense where a defender doesn't have the same positioning he would playing man-to-man.

I haven't thought it trough, but we block an awful lot of shots.

I don't know if that is an artifact of the zone defense too?

Some times certain offenses and defenses product a lot of something, e.g., points or rebounds or blocks and certain other offenses and defenses product less of those same things.

(01-25-2013 12:52 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 12:26 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  Long and athletic doesn't mean skilled and smart. Our team lacks the most basic fundamentals. We cannot rebound.. shoot we cannot even catch the ball at times. Free throws.. don't even get me started. Same with wide open shots. In high school you can win games based on athletic ability. Not on college level.

Some of this board believe problems with defensive rebounding is an artifact of the zone defense where a defender doesn't have the same positioning he would playing man-to-man.

I haven't thought it trough, but we block an awful lot of shots.

I don't know if that is an artifact of the zone defense too?

Some times certain offenses and defenses product a lot of something, e.g., points or rebounds or blocks and certain other offenses and defenses product less of those same things.

I know for the fact the Murphy practices boxing out of the zone, it is no different than boxing out in different defenses. You have to find a man closest to you, box him out and go after the ball. Our guys think they can out jump everyone and don't understand that unfortunately that won't work anymore. Guys like Harris, Bryant, and Riley are not bruisers, a tougher, smarter player gets a position on them every time.

But I have said it before and will say it again: Our team is an extremely SOFT group of guys.

(01-25-2013 01:06 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I know for the fact the Murphy practices boxing out of the zone, it is no different than boxing out in different defenses. You have to find a man closest to you, box him out and go after the ball. Our guys think they can out jump everyone and don't understand that unfortunately that won't work anymore. Guys like Harris, Bryant, and Riley are not bruisers, a tougher, smarter player gets a position on them every time.

in a man defense, 90% of the time you're already standing a) next to the guy you're going to box out, and b) between him and the basket (the most common exceptions being when you 'front' a post player or when you provide help defense). in a zone, this is not the case, so it is different. that does not mean we should excuse the players, because i agree, the lack of rebounding is a problem.

i think the problem stems from our players not getting good enough position on the player with the ball. because they do not have good position on him, they have to overcompensate to defend the shot (normally by jumping towards the player when he shoots). this leaves the defender out of position to get a rebound.

in my mind, the solution is to teach our bigs to get better position in the first place so they do not take themselves out of the play by jumping wildly to block a shot. you can play solid defense without leaving your feet.

also, Steve, about blocks being a product of the zone, i think having Riley, Harris and Bryant all collapsing on a driving player definitely adds to the block count. But, we've also seen a lot of 1-on-1 plays that end in a block. so, maybe the zone gives us a few more, but i think we would still get plenty of blocks in a man defense.

just my $.02.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, more to rib EA3 who is a friend.
Of all the players at Eastern, there is one guy I would'nt want at Western. I think your 7'0" foot kid is soft and a better looking version of Balkema... This guy should dominate, especially in the MAC.
Your zone is very, very well run.... I'm oughta here.

(01-25-2013 04:30 PM)broncojohnny Wrote:  I'm not trying to start a fight here, more to rib EA3 who is a friend.
Of all the players at Eastern, there is one guy I would'nt want at Western. I think your 7'0" foot kid is soft and a better looking version of Balkema... This guy should dominate, especially in the MAC.
Your zone is very, very well run.... I'm oughta here.

Hoping Murphy shares this with the team prior to the next WMU game.

(01-26-2013 08:03 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 04:30 PM)broncojohnny Wrote:  I'm not trying to start a fight here, more to rib EA3 who is a friend.
Of all the players at Eastern, there is one guy I would'nt want at Western. I think your 7'0" foot kid is soft and a better looking version of Balkema... This guy should dominate, especially in the MAC.
Your zone is very, very well run.... I'm oughta here.

Hoping Murphy shares this with the team prior to the next WMU game.

Why? It's actually a compliment. He's saying that the ONLY player he wouldn't want at Western is Riley because he is soft and should dominate but doesn't. No one can disagree with his assesment of Riley. He IS soft and it is amazing that in 2 years he has made ZERO offensive progress or improvement. I don't want him either. Can we trade him for Whittington? We'll throw in Balkema.

(01-25-2013 04:30 PM)broncojohnny Wrote:  I'm not trying to start a fight here, more to rib EA3 who is a friend.
Of all the players at Eastern, there is one guy I would'nt want at Western. I think your 7'0" foot kid is soft and a better looking version of Balkema... This guy should dominate, especially in the MAC.
Your zone is very, very well run.... I'm oughta here.

All in good fun sir :)

(01-26-2013 09:12 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 08:03 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 04:30 PM)broncojohnny Wrote:  I'm not trying to start a fight here, more to rib EA3 who is a friend.
Of all the players at Eastern, there is one guy I would'nt want at Western. I think your 7'0" foot kid is soft and a better looking version of Balkema... This guy should dominate, especially in the MAC.
Your zone is very, very well run.... I'm oughta here.

Hoping Murphy shares this with the team prior to the next WMU game.

Why? It's actually a compliment. He's saying that the ONLY player he wouldn't want at Western is Riley because he is soft and should dominate but doesn't. No one can disagree with his assesment of Riley. He IS soft and it is amazing that in 2 years he has made ZERO offensive progress or improvement. I don't want him either. Can we trade him for Whittington? We'll throw in Balkema.

No deal.

I'll give you Harper for Riley though :domokun: